DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Patent
(US 12,057,121 B2)
Instant Application
(18/780,882)
1. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors,
one or more memories communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, and
a management application executing on the apparatus, the management application being configured to:
receive, from a client device, a user selection of a first cognitive agent and a second cognitive agent of a plurality of cognitive agents available to be configured with a voice-activated service,
provide, to the client device, an indication of one or more compatible voice-activated services of a plurality of voice-activated services, the one or more compatible voice-activated services being selected from the plurality of voice-activated services based at least in part on a compatibility of the one or more compatible voice-activated services with the first cognitive agent and the second cognitive agent, receive a user selection of a first voice-activated service and a second voice-activated service on which a particular skill is to be deployed, wherein the second voice-activated service is different than the first voice-activated service, and the first voice-activated services and the second voice-activated service are selected from the one or more compatible voice-activated services,
retrieve code that implements the particular skill, generate and transmit, via one or more computer networks to a first computer system that hosts the first voice-activated service, the code that implements the particular skill,
wherein execution by the first computer system of the code that implements the particular skill causes the particular skill to be made available to cognitive agents executing on service endpoints associated with the first voice-activated service, and generate and transmit, via the one or more computer networks to a second computer system that hosts the second voice-activated service, the code that implements the particular skill, wherein execution by the second computer system of the code causes the particular skill to be made available to cognitive agents executing on service endpoints associated with the second voice-activated service.
21. discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more memories communicatively coupled to the one or more processors; and
a management application executing on the apparatus, wherein the management application causes the one or more processors to at least:
receive a user selection of a cognitive agent;
identify a voice-activated service that is compatible with the cognitive agent; and
cause a skill associated with the voice-activated service to be deployed to the voice-activated service.
Claims 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,057,121 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 21, 28 and 35 of the instant application is anticipated by patent Claims 1, 8 and 15 in that Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the Patent contains all the limitations of Claims 21, 28 and 35 of the instant application. Claims 21, 28 and 35 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the patent claims and as such is unpatentable for provisional obvious-type double patenting. The Instant application Claims 21, 28 and 35 is broader in every aspect than the patent Claims 21, 28 and 35 and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/step and rearranging the claims would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the omission of an element, e.g. “interference affected channel”, and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to data analysis without significantly more. The claims 21, 28 and 35 recite steps of “receive a user selection of a cognitive agent” (i.e., a data gathering/analysis/evaluation step), “identify a voice-activated service that is compatible with the cognitive agent’ (i.e., a data analysis/evaluation step) and “cause a skill associated with the voice-activated service to be deployed to the voice-activated service” (i.e., a judgement step), corresponding to steps achievable by a human or humans in providing a selection of an agent, identifying a service for the agent and assigning a skill to the agent, and as such, the mental processes and “certain methods of organizing human activity” categories of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, where the generically recited computer elements (i.e., apparatus, processor, memories, computer-implemented method, computer readable media) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because steps “identify a voice-activated service that is compatible with the cognitive agent” and “cause a skill associated with the voice-activated service to be deployed to the voice-activated service” correspond to well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions of “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result“ and “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05 and as provided by cited references Brown and Rodgers (see PTO 892 form)
The dependent claims also recite mental processes and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea and are as such similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 21, 23-26, 28, 30-33 and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al US 2015/0186156 A1 (“Brown”)
Per claim 21, Brown discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (fig. 2; para. [0048]);
one or more memories communicatively coupled to the one or more processors (fig. 2; para. [0113]); and
a management application executing on the apparatus, wherein the management application causes the one or more processors to (para. [0152]) at least:
receive a user selection of a cognitive agent (a virtual assistant may be identified to be trained by a trainer. This may include receiving user input via the virtual assistant trainer interface indicating a desire to train a virtual assistant (e.g., selecting a virtual assistant from a set of default, untrained, or partially trained virtual assistants that are made available) …, para. [0153]);
identify a voice-activated service that is compatible with the cognitive agent (para. [0035]; a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving an upload from the trainer that includes a reconfigured virtual assistant either directly or indirectly through conversation in one of the manners discussed above. The trainer may upload the trained version of the virtual assistant through the virtual assistant trainer interface or otherwise (e.g., provide a locally stored copy to the virtual assistant service 108), para. [0156]-[0158], providing assistant/agent to virtual assistant services as implying compatibility between agent and services); and
cause a skill associated with the voice-activated service to be deployed to the voice-activated service (A characteristic of a virtual assistant may include any visual, functional, or other feature or attribute that may be used to define the virtual assistant. … Example characteristics of a virtual assistant include: Functionality--actions that a virtual assistant is configured to perform (e.g., tasks, services, etc.) …, para. [0090]-[0091]; Alternatively, or additionally, a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving input through the virtual assistant trainer interface to configure a characteristic of a virtual assistant …, para. [0155]; a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving an upload from the trainer that includes a reconfigured virtual assistant either directly or indirectly through conversation in one of the manners discussed above. The trainer may upload the trained version of the virtual assistant through the virtual assistant trainer interface or otherwise (e.g., provide a locally stored copy to the virtual assistant service 108), para. [0156]; the user input may related to customization of a characteristic of a virtual assistant …, para. [0192], reconfigured/modified characteristic or functions of the virtual assistant as skill associated with service).
Per claim 23, Brown discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the management application further causes the one or more processors to at least: receive information for the skill from a user device (para. [0155]; para. [0192]); and
defining the skill in a cognitive agent system based at least in part on the information for the skill (para. [0090]).
Per claim 24, Brown discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, wherein data defining the skill comprises at least one of one or more attributes of the skill, a command, or a function (para. [0090]-[0091]).
Per claim 25, Brown discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the skill being deployed to the voice-activated service causes the skill to be made available to the cognitive agent (fig. 1; para. [0129]; para. [0156]-[0157]).
Per claim 26, Brown discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the cognitive agent executes on one or more service endpoints associated with the voice-activated service (fig. 1; para. [0156]-[0157]).
Per claim 28, Brown discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a user selection of a cognitive agent (a virtual assistant may be identified to be trained by a trainer. This may include receiving user input via the virtual assistant trainer interface indicating a desire to train a virtual assistant (e.g., selecting a virtual assistant from a set of default, untrained, or partially trained virtual assistants that are made available) …, para. [0153]);
identifying a voice-activated service that is compatible with the cognitive agent (para. [0035]; a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving an upload from the trainer that includes a reconfigured virtual assistant either directly or indirectly through conversation in one of the manners discussed above. The trainer may upload the trained version of the virtual assistant through the virtual assistant trainer interface or otherwise (e.g., provide a locally stored copy to the virtual assistant service 108), para. [0156]-[0158], providing assistant/agent to virtual assistant services as implying compatibility between agent and services); and
causing a skill associated with the voice-activated service to be deployed to the voice- activated service (A characteristic of a virtual assistant may include any visual, functional, or other feature or attribute that may be used to define the virtual assistant. … Example characteristics of a virtual assistant include: Functionality--actions that a virtual assistant is configured to perform (e.g., tasks, services, etc.) …, para. [0090]-[0091]; Alternatively, or additionally, a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving input through the virtual assistant trainer interface to configure a characteristic of a virtual assistant …, para. [0155]; a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving an upload from the trainer that includes a reconfigured virtual assistant either directly or indirectly through conversation in one of the manners discussed above. The trainer may upload the trained version of the virtual assistant through the virtual assistant trainer interface or otherwise (e.g., provide a locally stored copy to the virtual assistant service 108), para. [0156]; the user input may related to customization of a characteristic of a virtual assistant …, para. [0192], reconfigured/modified characteristic or functions of the virtual assistant as skill associated with service).
Per claim 30, Brown discloses the method of Claim 28, further comprising:
receiving information for the skill from a user device (para. [0155]; para. [0192]); and
defining the skill in a cognitive agent system based at least in part on the information for the skill (para. [0090]).
Per claim 31, Brown discloses the method of Claim 28, wherein data defining the skill comprises at least one of one or more attributes of the skill, a command, or a function (para. [0090]-[0091]).
Per claim 32, Brown discloses the method of Claim 28, wherein the skill being deployed to the voice-activated service causes the skill to be made available to the cognitive agent (fig. 1; para. [0129]; para. [0156]-[0157]).
Per claim 33, Brown discloses the method of Claim 28, wherein the cognitive agent executes on one or more service endpoints associated with the voice-activated service (fig. 1; para. [0156]-[0157]).
Per claim 35, Brown discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when processed by one or more processors, cause one or more computing devices to at least:
receive a user selection of a cognitive agent (a virtual assistant may be identified to be trained by a trainer. This may include receiving user input via the virtual assistant trainer interface indicating a desire to train a virtual assistant (e.g., selecting a virtual assistant from a set of default, untrained, or partially trained virtual assistants that are made available) …, para. [0153]);
identify a voice-activated service that is compatible with the cognitive agent (para. [0035]; a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving an upload from the trainer that includes a reconfigured virtual assistant either directly or indirectly through conversation in one of the manners discussed above. The trainer may upload the trained version of the virtual assistant through the virtual assistant trainer interface or otherwise (e.g., provide a locally stored copy to the virtual assistant service 108), para. [0156]-[0158], providing assistant/agent to virtual assistant services as implying compatibility between agent and services); and
cause a skill associated with the voice-activated service to be deployed to the voice- activated service (A characteristic of a virtual assistant may include any visual, functional, or other feature or attribute that may be used to define the virtual assistant. … Example characteristics of a virtual assistant include: Functionality--actions that a virtual assistant is configured to perform (e.g., tasks, services, etc.) …, para. [0090]-[0091]; Alternatively, or additionally, a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving input through the virtual assistant trainer interface to configure a characteristic of a virtual assistant …, para. [0155]; a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving an upload from the trainer that includes a reconfigured virtual assistant either directly or indirectly through conversation in one of the manners discussed above. The trainer may upload the trained version of the virtual assistant through the virtual assistant trainer interface or otherwise (e.g., provide a locally stored copy to the virtual assistant service 108), para. [0156]; the user input may related to customization of a characteristic of a virtual assistant …, para. [0192], reconfigured/modified characteristic or functions of the virtual assistant as skill associated with service).
Per claim 36, Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of Claim 35, wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more computing devices to at least: receive information for the skill from a user device (para. [0155]; para. [0192]); and
defining the skill in a cognitive agent system based at least in part on the information for the skill (para. [0090]).
Per claim 37, Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of Claim 35, wherein data defining the skill comprises at least one of one or more attributes of the skill, a command, or a function (para. [0090]-[0091]).
Per claim 38, Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of Claim 35, wherein the skill being deployed to the voice-activated service causes the skill to be made available to the cognitive agent (fig. 1; para. [0129]; para. [0156]-[0157]).
Per claim 39, Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of Claim 35, wherein the cognitive agent executes on one or more service endpoints associated with the voice-activated service (fig. 1; para. [0156]-[0157]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 22, 27, 29, 34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Brown in view of Rodgers US 2019/0205461 A1 (“Rodgers”)
Per claim 22, Brown discloses the apparatus of Claim 21,
Brown does not explicitly disclose wherein the management application further causes the one or more processors to at least obtain code that implements the skill
However, this feature is taught by Rodgers (fig. 1; para. [0033]; execution engine 143 includes hardware and/or software configured to generate executable code, based on a specification …, para. [0052]; para. [0056]; para. [0066]; para. [0071])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Rodgers with the apparatus of Brown in arriving at the missing features of Brown, because such combination would have resulted in allowing a user to author custom skills that are invoked across multiple platforms by adding nodes and text with which a virtual assistant system should respond, what input is expected, what states to transition to based upon user input, and what operations to execute (Rodgers, para. [0023]; para. [0053]; para. [0074]).
Per claim 27, Brown discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the management application further causes the one or more processors to at least: receive information for the cognitive agent from the user device (para. [0155]);
register the cognitive agent in a cognitive agent system based at least in part on the information for the cognitive agent (para. [0155]; Further, a trained version of a virtual assistant may be obtained by receiving an upload from the trainer that includes a reconfigured virtual assistant … The trainer may upload the trained version of the virtual assistant through the virtual assistant trainer interface or otherwise (e.g., provide a locally stored copy to the virtual assistant service 108), para. [0156]-[0157]); and
Brown does not explicitly disclose to: register the cognitive agent in a vendor system based at least in part on the information for the cognitive agent
However, this feature is taught by Rodgers (query system 140 may be communicatively coupled to smart speakers from different vendors.…, para. [0033]; para. [0035]; Virtual assistant platform 150b may be designed by a different vendor …, para. [0036]; In an embodiment, specification editor 110 receives user input to define a specification for a virtual assistant service …, para. [0060]; para. [0070]-[0071]; In an embodiment, specification editor 110 publishes the service to virtual assistant platforms …, para. [0073])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Rodgers with the apparatus of Brown in arriving at the missing features of Brown, because such combination would have resulted in allowing a user to author custom skills that are invoked across multiple platforms by adding nodes and text with which a virtual assistant system should respond, what input is expected, what states to transition to based upon user input, and what operations to execute (Rodgers, para. [0023]; para. [0053]; para. [0074]).
Per claim 29, Brown discloses the method of Claim 28,
Method claim 29 and apparatus claim 22 are related as method and the apparatus of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 29 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 22.
Per claim 34, Brown discloses the method of Claim 28,
Method claim 34 and apparatus claim 27 are related as method and the apparatus of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 34 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 27.
Per claim 40, Brown discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of Claim 35, wherein the instructions, when processed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more computing devices to perform functions
Media claim 40 and apparatus claim 27 are related as media and the apparatus of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 40 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to claim 27.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUJIMI A ADESANYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLUJIMI A ADESANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658